Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car

A new revolution of the automotive industry is hitting the industry with the need for an autonomous vehicle. This is in line with the Mega Science 3.0 Roadmap 2020-2050, which requires the industry 10 provide safer and more efficient driver-free driving. However, the acceptance level of the autonomo...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Hakimi, Halimaton Saadiah
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English English
Published:	2020
Subjects:	T Technology (General)
Online Access:	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/1/Trust%20Requirements%20Approach%20For%20Eliciting%20Requirements%20Autonomous%20Car.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/2/Trust%20Requirements%20Approach%20For%20Eliciting%20Requirements%20Autonomous%20Car.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utem-ep.25513
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
collection	UTeM Repository
language	English English
advisor	Kamalrudin, Massila
topic	T Technology (General) T Technology (General)
spellingShingle	T Technology (General) T Technology (General) Hakimi, Halimaton Saadiah Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car
description	A new revolution of the automotive industry is hitting the industry with the need for an autonomous vehicle. This is in line with the Mega Science 3.0 Roadmap 2020-2050, which requires the industry 10 provide safer and more efficient driver-free driving. However, the acceptance level of the autonomous car s still minimal due to lack of trust in the autonomous technology. In this case, the challenging task for automakers are to gain user acceptance in using these highly technology cars, Although much effort has been made to grain user’s acceptance such as improving the safely features of the car, yet there have been very limited works to elicit trust able requirements of the cars before the development of an autonomous car. In this case, eliciting accurate functional requirements s challenging, especially for automotive engineers who are not well with the business process and the vocabulary used in the autonomous domain. Motivated by these problems, the objective of this thesis are three-folds; Firstly, to analyze trust requirements comprising trust attributes and trust properties, secondly to propose a new trust requirements approach in eliciting autonomous requirements, and thirdly to evaluate the usability of proposed trust requirements approach. This thesis proposes a new automated approach to assist the automotive engineer and client-stakeholders to elicit trust requirements of the autonomous car. For this, we started with an analysis of the significant trust attributes and trust properties of autonomous. Next, we have developed a trust requirements autonomous car (TREAC) pattern library in order to store all the input and significant trust attributes and trust properties of the autonomous car. Then, we embed the TReAC pattern library to the elicitation to elicit requirements of the autonomous car. Here, an automated tool support called Autocarreq. MEReq is also developed to realize the approach, Finally, a comprehensive evaluation of the approach, through usability test, was conducted, In summary, the finding of the evaluations show that our approach is useful and able eliciting trust requirements at the early stage of autonomous car development. It is believed that the proposed approach could help to increase the acceptance of users towards autonomous car. This is because the developments approach able to elicit and validate the trust level of the car requirements.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Hakimi, Halimaton Saadiah
author_facet	Hakimi, Halimaton Saadiah
author_sort	Hakimi, Halimaton Saadiah
title	Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car
title_short	Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car
title_full	Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car
title_fullStr	Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car
title_full_unstemmed	Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car
title_sort	trust requirements approach for eliciting requirements autonomous car
granting_institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
granting_department	Faculty of Information and Communication Technology
publishDate	2020
url	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/1/Trust%20Requirements%20Approach%20For%20Eliciting%20Requirements%20Autonomous%20Car.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/2/Trust%20Requirements%20Approach%20For%20Eliciting%20Requirements%20Autonomous%20Car.pdf
_version_	1747834135111532544
spelling	my-utem-ep.255132022-01-06T12:05:18Z Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car 2020 Hakimi, Halimaton Saadiah T Technology (General) TL Motor vehicles. Aeronautics. Astronautics A new revolution of the automotive industry is hitting the industry with the need for an autonomous vehicle. This is in line with the Mega Science 3.0 Roadmap 2020-2050, which requires the industry 10 provide safer and more efficient driver-free driving. However, the acceptance level of the autonomous car s still minimal due to lack of trust in the autonomous technology. In this case, the challenging task for automakers are to gain user acceptance in using these highly technology cars, Although much effort has been made to grain user’s acceptance such as improving the safely features of the car, yet there have been very limited works to elicit trust able requirements of the cars before the development of an autonomous car. In this case, eliciting accurate functional requirements s challenging, especially for automotive engineers who are not well with the business process and the vocabulary used in the autonomous domain. Motivated by these problems, the objective of this thesis are three-folds; Firstly, to analyze trust requirements comprising trust attributes and trust properties, secondly to propose a new trust requirements approach in eliciting autonomous requirements, and thirdly to evaluate the usability of proposed trust requirements approach. This thesis proposes a new automated approach to assist the automotive engineer and client-stakeholders to elicit trust requirements of the autonomous car. For this, we started with an analysis of the significant trust attributes and trust properties of autonomous. Next, we have developed a trust requirements autonomous car (TREAC) pattern library in order to store all the input and significant trust attributes and trust properties of the autonomous car. Then, we embed the TReAC pattern library to the elicitation to elicit requirements of the autonomous car. Here, an automated tool support called Autocarreq. MEReq is also developed to realize the approach, Finally, a comprehensive evaluation of the approach, through usability test, was conducted, In summary, the finding of the evaluations show that our approach is useful and able eliciting trust requirements at the early stage of autonomous car development. It is believed that the proposed approach could help to increase the acceptance of users towards autonomous car. This is because the developments approach able to elicit and validate the trust level of the car requirements. 2020 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/1/Trust%20Requirements%20Approach%20For%20Eliciting%20Requirements%20Autonomous%20Car.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/25513/2/Trust%20Requirements%20Approach%20For%20Eliciting%20Requirements%20Autonomous%20Car.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=119737 mphil masters Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Faculty of Information and Communication Technology Kamalrudin, Massila 1. Abraham, H., Lee, C., Brady, S., Fitzgerald, C., Mehler, B., Reimer, B. and Coughlin, J. F., 2016. Autonomous Vehicles, Trust, and Driving Alternatives: A survey of consumer preferences. Massachusetts Institute of Technology AgeLab, (May), pp. 1-1 6. 2. Ahmed, S. M., 2015. The Effects Of Brand Credibility On Customers' Wom Communication: The Mediating Role Of Brand Commitment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(3), pp. 164-1 76. 3. Al-Hawary, S. I. S., 2013. The roles of perceived quality, trust, and satisfaction in predicting brand loyalty: the empirical research on automobile brands in Jordan market. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6 (6), pp. 656-686. 4. Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp. 41 1- Anney, V. N., 2014. Ensuring the quality of the frndings of qualitative research: looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), pp. 272-28 1. 5. Balaji, P., Nagaraju, O., and Haritha, D., 2017. Reputation Based Trust Evaluation in Ecommerce Applications by Using Feedback Comments. IEEE Explore, (I), pp. 40-42. 6. Balasubrmanian, M. and Kim, H., 2017. Trust Evaluation Scheme for Cloud Data Security using Fuzzy based Approach. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 1 2(13), pp. 3908-39 7. Banks, V., Plant, K. and Stanton, N., 2019. Driver error or designer error: Using the Perceptual Cycle Model to explore the circumstances surrounding the fatal Tesla crash on 7th May 201 6. Safety Science, 108, pp. 278-285. 8. Basak, S. K., Govender, D. W. and Govender, I., 2016. Examining the impact of privacy, Security, and trust on the TAM and TTF models for e-commerce consumers: A pilot study. 201 6 14th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, PST 201 6, pp. 19- 26. 9. Basu, C. and Singhal, M., 2016. Trust Dynamics in Human Autonomous Vehicle Interaction : A Review of Trust Models. 201 6 AAAI Spring Symposium Series, pp. 85-91. 10. Boomsma, A. and Hoogland, J. J., 2001. The Robustness of LISREL Modeling Revisited.Structural Equation Modeling Present and Future, pp. 139-1 68. 11. Bourque, L. and Fielder, E., 2003. How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys-Sage Publication, pp. 1-265. 12. Burns, N., Grove, S .K., and Gray, J., 201 1. Understanding Nursing Research: Building an Evidence-based Practice. Elsevier/Saunders. 13. Buttle, F., 1996. SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), pp. 8-32. 14. Calzolari, G., Felli, L., Koenen, J., Spagnolo, G. and Stahl, K. O., 2008. Trust, Competition and Innovation: Theory and Evidence from German Car Manufacturers. Center for Economic Study, 5229, pp. 1-50. 15. Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L. and Sekaran, U., 201 1. Applied Business research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia, pp. 1 - 1 56. 16. Cazier, J., Shao, B. and Louis, R. St., 2017. Value Congruence, Trust, and Their Effects on Purchase Intention and Reservation Price. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 8(4), pp. 1-28. 17. Chien, S.-Y., Lewis, M., Hergeth, S., Semnani-Azad, Z. and Sycara, K., 2015. Cross- Country Validation of a Cultural Scale in Measuring Trust in Automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), pp. 686-690. 18. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L. and Newsted, P. R., 2003. A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion. Adoption Study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), pp. 1 89-2 19. Choi, J. K. and Ji, Y. G., 2015. Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 3 1 (1 O), pp.692-702. 20. Christopher Westland, J., 2010. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), pp. 476-487. 21. Churchill, G. A., 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), pp. 64-73. 22. Constantino, M. J., Arnkoff, D. B., Glass, C. R., Arnetrano, R. M. and Smith, J. A. Z., 201 1. Expectations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), pp. 184-1 92. 23. Cope, D. G., 2014. Methods and Meanings: Credibility and Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1), pp. 40-55. 24. Creech, C., Jayararnan, S. K., Robert, L., Tilbury, D., Yang, X. J., Pradhan, A. and Tsui, K., 2017. Trust and Control in Autonomous Vehicle Interactions. Robotics: Science and Systems 201 7 Workshop Morality and Social Trust in Autonomous Robots Conference, pp. 1-5. 25. Cunningham, M. and Regan, M. A., 2015. Autonomous Vehicles : Human Factors Issues and Future Research. Proceedings of the 2015 Australasian Road Safety Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 14- 16 October, pp. 1 - 15. 26. Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2016. Press Release Services Statistics Education (Private Sector) 2015, pp. 1-25. 27. Dyba. T., Hanssen, G. and Dingsoyr, T., 2007. Applying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report. First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007), pp. 225-234. 28. Eid, M. I., 201 1. Determinants of e-commerce customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12(1), pp. 78-93. 29. Fernandez-Gago, C., Moyano, F. and Lopez, J., 201 7. Modelling trust dynamics in the Internet of Things. Information Sciences, 396, pp. 72-82. 30. Fitch, G. M., Bowman, D. S. and Llaneras, R. E., 2014. Human Factors : The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. pp. 1844-1 848. 31. Flemisch, F., Kaussner, A., Petermann, I., Schieben, A. and Schoming, N., 201 1. HjlVEIT.Highly automated vehicles for intelligent transport. Validation of concept on optimum task repartition, Regensburg, Germany: Continental Automotive GmbH. 32. George, D. and Mallery, P., 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step A Simple Guide and Reference, 4h edn., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 1-63. 33. Golafshani, N., 2003. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), pp. 597-607. 34. Hakirni, H., Kamalrudin, M., Sidek, S. and Akmal, S., 2018a. Trust Requirements Model for Developing Acceptable Autonomous Car. Science Publishing Group, 6(2), pp. 69-74. 35. Hakirni, H. S., Kamalrudin, M., and Akrnal, S., 2018b. Determining the Trust Requirements Attributes for Automotive Industry. International Jourrzul of Pure and Applies Mathematic, 119 (1 8), pp. 487-508. 36. Heikoop, D., Hagenzieker, M., Mecacci, G., Calvert, S., Santoni De Sio, F. and van Arem, B., 2019. Human behaviour with automated driving systems: a quantitative fkamework for meaningful human control. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(6), pp. 71 1-730. 37. Henseler, J., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M., 2012. Using Partial Issues.Handbook of Research on International Advertising, pp. 252-261. 38. Hofban, R. R., Cognition, M., Lee, J. D., and Madison, W., 2013. Trust in automation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pp. 5-1 1. 39. Inbar, 0. and Meyer, J., 2015. Manners Matter: Trust in Robotic Peacekeepers. 59th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 185-1 89. 40. Jayaraman, S., Creech, C., Tilbury, D., Yang, X., Pradhan, A., Tsui, K. and Robert, L., 2019. Pedestrian Twt in Automated Vehicles: Role of Traflc Signal and AV Driving Behavior. 41. Jones, J. and Bany, M. M., 2016. Factors influencing trust and mistrust in health promotion partnerships. Global Health Promotion, (March), 25(2), pp. 16-24. 42. Kaplan, D., Lacetera, N., and Kaplan, C., 2008. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review. PLoS ONE, 3(7), pp. 3-5. 43. Karlsson, I. C. M. and Pettersson, I., 2015. Setting the stage for autonomous cars: a pilot study of future autonomous driving experiences. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 9(7), pp. 694-70 1. 44. Kazi, T. A., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., and Young, M. S., 2007. Designer driving: drivers' conceptual models and level of trust in adaptive cruise control. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45(3), pp. 339-360. 45. Khurana, S., Chandna, A. and Batra, G., 2016. How much human do we need in a car?The evolution of artificial intelligence and the acceptance of autonomous vehicles. EYGM Limited., pp. 1-8. 46. Kitchenham, B. A., and S. C., 2007. Procedures for Performing Systematic Literature Review in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE, pp. 1-28. 47. Kowshalya, A. M. and Valarmathi, M. L., 2017. Trust management for reliable decision making among social objects in the Social Internet of Things. IEEE Explore, 6(4), pp. 75-80. 48. Krejcie, R. V and Morgan, D. W., 1970. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities Robert. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, pp. 607-61 0. 49. Lamsweerde, A. Van, 2000. Formal Specification : a Roadmap. In: ICSE '00 Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Sojhvare Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 147-159. 50. Lee, J. D. and See, K. A., 2004. Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46 (I), pp. 50-80. 51. Lee, J. G., Kim, K. J., Lee, S. and Shin, D. H., 2015. Can Autonomous Vehicles Be Safe and Trustworthy? Effects of Appearance and Autonomy of Unmanned Driving Systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 3 l(1 O), pp. 682-686. 52. Lee, J. and Kolodge, K., 2019. Exploring Trust in Self-Driving Vehicles Through Text Analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, p.001872081987267. 53. Lowry, P. B. and Gaskin, J., 2014. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57 (2), pp. 123-146. 54. Luo, H., Yu, Y., Huang, W., Liang, J. and Yang, L., 2017. Empirical research on the influencing factors of consumers' trust transfer fiom offline to online channel. In: IEEE Explore. pp. 1-5. 55. Marakanon, L. and Panjakajornsak, V., 2017. Perceived quality, perceived risk and customer trust affecting customer loyalty of environmentally friendly electronics products. Science Direct, 38 (I), pp. 2&30. 56. Mariani, M. and Iqbal, L. A. M., 2015. The Impact of Social Influence and Trust on Customer-to-Customer Online Shoppers' Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study in Indonesia. GSTF Journal on Computing, 4 (3), pp. 1-10. 57. Mbanaso, U. M. and Chukwudebe, G. A., 2017. Requirement Analysis of IoT Security in Distributed Systems. 201 7 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Electro-Technology for National Development (NIGERCON), Owerri, 201 7, pp. 777-78 1. 58. McKnight, D. H., Lankton, N. K., Nicolaou, A. and Price, J., 2017. Distinguishing the effects of B2B information quality, system quality, and service outcome quality on trust and distrust. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26 (2), pp. 1 18-141. 59. Metcalfe, J. S., Marathe, A. R., Haynes, B., Paul, V. J., Gremillion, G. M., Drnec, K., Atwater, C., Estepp, J. R., Lukos, J. R., Carter, E. C. and Nothwang, W. D., 2017. Building a framework to manage trust in automation. Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) 101 94, Micro- and Nanotechnology Sensors, Systems, and Applications LX, pp. 1 - 1 1. 60. Mou, J., Shin, D. H. and Cohen, J., 201 7. Understanding trust and perceived usefblness in the consumer acceptance of an e-service: a longitudinal investigation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 36 (2), pp. 125-1 39. 61. Nahavandi, S., 2017. Trusted Autonomy Between Humans and Robots: Toward Humanon-the-loop in Robotics and Autonomous Systems. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine, pp. 1 6 1 7. 62. NHSTSA, 2016. Automated Vehicle for safety [online]. Available at: https://www .nhtsa.gov/technology-innovatiodautomated-vehicles-safe,p p. 1-5. 63. Oliveira, T., Alhinho, M., Rita, P. and Dhillon, G., 2017. Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, pp. 1 53-1 64. 64. Onwuegbuzie, A. and Leech, N., 2005. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(5), pp. 375-387. 65. Panya, A. and Ramingwong, L., 2015. A framework for building trust in B2C Ecommerce based on consumer's viewpoint in Thailand. Proceedings of the 20th Asia- PaciJic Conference on Communication, APCC 2014, pp. 27 1-276. 66. Parsons, S., Atkinson, K., Li, Z., Mcburney, P. and Sklar, E., 2014. Argument schemes for reasoning about trust.pdf, 5, pp. 160-1 90. 67. Payre, W., Cestac, J. and Delhomme, P., 2016. Fully Automated Driving:Impact of Trust and Practice on Manual Control Recovery. Human Factors: 27ze Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(2), pp. 229-241. 68. Pedhazur, E. J. and Schmelkin, L. P., 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 69. Pettersson, I., 2014. Setting the Stage for Self-Driving Cars : Exploration of future autonomous driving experiences. European Conference on Human Centered Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, pp. 1-9. 70. Pettersson, I. and Karlsson, I. C. M., 2015. Setting the stage for autonomous cars: a pilot study of future autonomous driving experiences. IET Intelligent Transport System, 9(7), pp. 694-701. 71. Pettigrew, S., Worrall, C., Talati, Z., Fritschi, L. and Norman, R., 2019. Dimensions of attitudes to autonomous vehicles. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 7(1), pp. 19- 72. Polit, D. F. and Hungler, B. P., 1999. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. Lippincott. 73. Pothong, C. and Sathitwiriyawong, C., 2017. Factors of s-commerce influencing trust and purchase intention. IEEE Explore, pp. 1-5. 74. Purcell, S., Neale, B., Todd-Brown, K., Thomas, L., Ferreira, M. A. R., Bender, D., Maller, J., Sklar, P., de Bakker, P. I. W., Daly, M. J. and Sham, P. C., 2007. PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 8 1 (3), pp. 559-575. 75. Rajaonah, B., 2017. A view of trust and information system security under the perspective of critical infrastructure protection. Revue des Sciences et Technologies de 1 'Information-Sirie ISI: Ingknierie des SystGmes d 'Information, 22( 1 ), pp. 1-26. 76. Reese, H., 2016. Updated: Autonomous driving levels 0 to 5: Understanding the differences The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' levels for automated driving systems, ranging from complete driver control to full aut [online]. techrepublic. Available at: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-O-to-5-~derstandingthe- differenced. 77. REKA, 2017. Young Malaysians Invented Malaysia's First Self Driving Car [online]. 78. REKA Initiative. Available at: https://reka.com.my/about/news/press- Rezvani, T., Driggs-Campbell, K., Sadigh, D., Sastry, S. S., Seshia, S. A. and Bajcsy, R., 2016. Towards trustworthy automation: User Interfaces that convey internal and external awareness. IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 682-688. 79. Robbins, B. G., 2016. When Social Constraints Increase Trust: Considering Causal Attributions as a Source of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, pp. 1-1 1. 80. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. and Wrightsman, L. S., 1991. Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1, pp. 1-1 6. 81. Rijdel, C., Stadler, S., Meschtscherjakov, A. and Tscheligi, M., 2014. Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Integaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 1-8. 82. Saffarian, M., de Winter, J. and Happee, R., 2012. Automated Driving: Human-factors issues and design solutions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th, 56(1), pp. 2296-2300. 83. Sahu, P. K., 2013. Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers In Agricultural Science, Social Science and Other Related Fields. Springer India. 84. Schaefer, K. E. and Scribner, D. R., 2015. Individual Differences, Trust, and Vehicle Autonomy. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), pp. 786-790. 85. Schaefer, M. L., Burke, N. L., Leslie J. Heinberg and Calogero, R. M., 2015. Development and Validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 (SATAQ-4) Lauren. American Psychological Association, 27(1), pp. 5 6 67. 86. Schoettle, B. and Sivak, M., 2014. A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. 2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo, ICCVE 2014 - Proceedings, (July), pp. 687-692. 87. Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R., 2016. Research methods for business : a skill-building approach, 7& ed., Chichester : John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1-407. 88. Shah, R. and Goldstein, S. M., 2006. Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), pp. 148-1 69. 89. Sicari, S., A. Rizzardi, Grieco, L. A. and Coen-Porisini, A., 2015. Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead. Computer Networks, 76, pp. 146-1 64. 90. Singh, M. and Kim, S., 2017. Intelligent Vehicle-Trust Point: Reward based Intelligent Vehicle Communication using Blockchain. CoRR, pp. 1-4. 91. Stanton, N. A., Young, M. S., Stanton, N. A., Young, M. S. and Guy, H., 2016. The psychology of driving automation: A discussion with Professor Don Norman. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45(3), pp. 1-1 5. 92. Stevens, J., 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 3d ed., Mahwah, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-655. 93. Suhaimi, M. A., Moharned Razi, M. J., Hussin, H., Muhammad, M. R., Muhammad, M. and Abdullah, K., 201 3. Conceptualizing trust-based online behavior model for Muslim consumers. 2013 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for the Muslim World, ICT4M 2013, Rabat, 2013, pp. 1-6. 94. Urban, G. L. and Hauser, J. R., 2012. Competitive Information, Trust, Brand Consideration and Sales: Two Field Experiments, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(2), pp. 101-1 13. 95. Verberne, F. M. F., Ham, J. and Midden, C. J. H., 2012. Trust in Smart Systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), pp. 799-8 10. 96. Wagner, M. and Koopman, P., 2015. A Philosophy for Developing Trust in Self-driving Cars In Road Vehicle Automation: Springer, 2, pp. 163-1 71. 97. Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A. and Salmon, P., 2016. Trust in vehicle technology. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 70(2), pp. 157-1 82. 98. Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., and Young, M. S., 2001. Where Is Computing Driving Cars? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13 (2), pp. 203-229. 99. Wang, N., David, V. P., and Susan, G. H., 2016. Trust Calibration within a Human-Robot Team: Comparing Automatically Generated Explanations. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 1 09-1 1 6. 100. Winter, G., 2000. The Qualitative Report A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), pp. 1-14. 101. Wintersberger, P. and Riener, A., 201 6. Trust in Technology as a Safety Aspect in Highly Automated Driving. I-Com, 15(3), pp. 297-3 10. 102. Wintterlin, F., 2017. Trust in distant sources: An analytical model capturing antecedents of risk and trustworthiness as perceived by journalists. Journalism, pp. 1-16. 103. Yan, C., Xu, W., and Liu, J., 2017. Can You Trust Autonomous Vehicles: Contactless Attacks against Sensors of Self-driving Vehicle. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1828, pp.53-59. 104. Yanco, H. A*, Desai, M., Drury, J. L. and Steinfeld, A., 2016. Methods for developing trust models for intelligent systems. Springer, (Lin 2008), pp. 219-254. 105. Yerdon, V. A., Marlowe, T. A., Volante, W. G., Li, S. and Hancock, P. A., 2016. Investigating Cross-Cultural Differences in Trust Levels. Advances in Cross-Cultural Decision Making, (June), pp. 183-1 94. 106. Zikrnund, W. G., 2003. Business Research Methods, ThomsonlSouth-Western., pp. 1-48.

Trust Requirements Approach For Eliciting Requirements Autonomous Car

Similar Items